PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution And Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2013
John Hope Franklin Tulsa-Greenwood Race Riot Claims Accountability Act of 2013 - Declares that any person (including the state of Oklahoma) who, in connection with the Greenwood community of Tulsa, Oklahoma, race riot of 1921 and its aftermath, acted under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the state of Oklahoma to subject, or cause to be subjected, any person to the deprivation, on account of race, of any right secured at the time of the deprivation by Oklahoma law, shall be liable to the party injured in a civil action for redress (thereby allowing claims for damages notwithstanding the federal court decision in Alexander v. State of Oklahoma, which found that such claims were time-barred and not to be determined on the merits).
Prohibits the commencement of such a civil action more than five years after enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution And Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E12)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.98 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.98 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.98 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.98 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.